Boulder’s Airport Debate: Balancing Values, Facing Realities
- Matt Benjamin
- Jun 11
- 19 min read
Dear Friend and Neighbors,
TL;DR
A 5-4 majority of City Council supports long-term airport operations, but a procedural dispute over grant “perpetuity” covenants is delaying action and costing taxpayers real money
Boulder has already lost nearly $830,000 in federal grants, with another $765,000 at risk, over $1.5 million gone or in jeopardy
Independent legal research confirms: every airport that has considered declining federal grants was on a path to close the airport entirely, not gain greater operational control
Closing the airport isn’t legally possible until at least 2040, and likely beyond, declining grants won’t change that
The airport isn’t a viable housing solution; the Area III Planning Reserve offers 500 acres ready for development now
My 2026 primary endorsements: Bennet (Governor), Dougherty (Attorney General), Friend (Treasurer), Hooton (CU Regent), Rosenthal (RTD Board)
Full Story Below
I grew up in an aviation family. Flying wasn’t just a hobby for us, it was part of our lives. My dad was a pilot, my family spent countless hours at small airports across California and the western US, building hours and certifications, seeing the West from a perspective most people never experience. In high school, I learned to fly at Santa Monica Airport, the same airport that’s now at the center of Boulder’s debate about what’s legally possible for local airport restrictions.
Aviation gave me some of the best experiences of my life. But it also brought profound loss. On September 29, 2013, my father and brother died in a plane crash at Santa Monica Airport, along with their girlfriends. They were returning from Idaho on a clear day, landed safely on the runway, and then, halfway down, the plane veered off and crashed into a hangar. To this day, the NTSB report offers no formal conclusion about what caused the accident.
I have every reason to hate and despise airplanes and aviation because of the losses my family has experienced. But I don’t. I genuinely still love aviation, what it brings to those who fly and to the communities that support aviation of all types. That complexity, loving something while carrying its scars, informs how I approach Boulder’s airport debate. I’m not coming at this from policy papers or secondhand research. I’ve lived it.
Many people who’ve moved to Boulder recently may not know the airport’s history or the pivotal role it’s played in keeping our community safe.
September 2013 floods: Boulder Municipal Airport served as the key hub for the second-largest aerial evacuation in U.S. history, second only to Hurricane Katrina. When roads were washed out and neighborhoods were cut off, this airport was the lifeline that got people out and brought emergency supplies in.
Wildfire response: The airport serves as a forward operating base for helicopters fighting front-range fires. Over the past decade, as wildfire seasons have grown longer and more intense, this airport has been a critical staging area for rapid aerial attack on fires threatening our community and region.
Growing risks: Wildfire risk isn’t declining, it’s accelerating. Climate change, drought, and forest conditions mean we face more frequent and more dangerous fire seasons ahead. Giving up an asset that allows for rapid wildfire response strikes me as irresponsible and puts our community in grave danger. When lives and homes are at stake, minutes matter. Having a functional airport within our city limits isn’t a luxury; it’s a critical piece of emergency infrastructure.
This context matters as we debate the airport’s future. Reasonable people can disagree about land use priorities, but we should be clear-eyed about what we’d be giving up.
At our April 23 study session, City Council was tasked with giving staff feedback and ultimately direction on how to structure operating and funding the airport. We conducted a straw poll on the fundamental question: Should Boulder operate the airport long-term, or operate it short-term while keeping the option to close it open? The straw poll indicated a 5-4 majority preference for long-term operations, a clear signal to staff of council’s direction: operate the airport for the foreseeable future.
That should have been the end of the major policy question. It wasn’t.
At our May 28 meeting, rather than formalizing that direction, a different majority asked the city attorney to research whether council has the authority to set policy on which grant covenants are acceptable, specifically, FAA grants that come with perpetuity use requirements. The city attorney’s analysis is now pending. A formal decision on how to move forward could come in as little as two weeks, or it could take months.
I want to be clear: this procedural detour, while frustrating, is not unlawful. Council members have legitimate questions they want answered. But I do believe it’s creating unnecessary delay and real financial cost, and I want our community to understand what’s actually at stake before that public hearing arrives.
Some residents want the airport closed so the land can be redeveloped for housing. Others see it as a valuable community asset that supports flight training, research, emergency services, and a unique piece of Boulder’s identity. Both perspectives are rooted in legitimate values. But the path forward requires us to reckon with some hard truths about what’s legally possible, what’s fiscally responsible, and what trade-offs we’re willing to accept.
The sticking point for some of my colleagues is this: most significant FAA grants, especially those available now, come with a covenant requiring the recipient to operate the property as an airport indefinitely, or in perpetuity. Some council members view this as effectively transferring land use control to the federal government forever, and believe that a decision of that magnitude requires a specific council vote before the City Manager can proceed.
I understand the concern. But I believe it represents a distinction without a difference, and I want to explain why.
We’ve operated this airport for 80 years. For eight decades, Boulder has treated this airport as a fixture of our community. We’ve invested in it, staffed it, maintained it, and never once stopped to debate whether the grants we were accepting might tie our hands. We simply operated under the reasonable assumption that this airport matters to our community and we should invest in it accordingly.
A majority of council just said the same thing. A straw poll at our April study session showed five members of council indicating a clear preference for long-term, perpetual operations. If that is the majority’s preference, and it was clearly expressed, then a grant covenant requiring perpetuity use is simply saying the same thing in different words. We are not accepting a new burden. We are accepting federal dollars that reflect a commitment we’ve already made.
To argue that we can commit to indefinite operations but refuse to accept grants that codify that commitment is, frankly, trying to have it both ways.
Taking a grant doesn’t foreclose our legal options. Boulder previously sued the FAA in a quiet title action, arguing that it is unlawful for any government agency to encumber property it doesn’t own forever. We can make that argument again. Accepting a grant today doesn’t prevent us from challenging the legal validity of perpetuity covenants in court tomorrow. Those are separate questions.
But here’s the harder truth about the grants debate: No granting agency, not the FAA, not the state of Colorado, not anyone, is going to offer Boulder a 15 or 20-year grant if our community is openly debating closing the airport in just 14 years. Think about it from the grantor’s perspective: it would be fiduciary malpractice to award long-term infrastructure funding to a recipient who has already signaled they might shut down the facility before the grant period ends.
Consider an analogy closer to home: Would the City of Boulder give an arts grant to a nonprofit that had already announced it was leaving Boulder in six months? Of course not. That would be an irresponsible use of public dollars. The same logic applies here. The moment we signal ambivalence about the airport’s future, we don’t just risk losing the perpetuity grants, we risk losing all significant grants, because no serious funder commits resources to an uncertain future.
Private investment follows the same logic. The airport’s long-term financial health depends not just on federal grants, but on private tenants, pilots, hangar operators, aviation businesses, and aerospace companies, who sign long-term leases and invest in infrastructure. No rational investor signs a 20-year hangar lease on a facility that might be bulldozed in 14 years. As we get closer to 2040 without a clear commitment, private investment will dry up, revenue will fall, and the city’s subsidy burden will grow, making the airport look like a financial albatross and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of financial failure.
The reverse is equally true. Make the commitment now, and private investment flows back in. Tenants sign long leases. Businesses invest in facilities. The airport becomes financially self-sustaining, and likely even profitable, reducing the pressure on the general fund rather than adding to it.
The perpetuity debate is not a serious obstacle to moving forward. It is an attempt to appease both those who want to keep the airport open and those who want to preserve the option to close it. I understand that impulse. But you cannot satisfy both positions simultaneously. At some point, a majority of council has to make a decision and stand behind it. We expressed that preference clearly on April 23. I believe it’s time to act on it.
A note on legal advice: The analysis that follows does not convey any confidential legal advice I’ve received from our city attorney. What I’m sharing here is based on publicly available information, basic legal research, and my personal lived experience flying in and out of Santa Monica Airport and knowing that airport’s history.
Many airport closure advocates point to Santa Monica Airport as a model: a city that imposed curfews, banned certain aircraft types, and is now closing the airport entirely by December 31, 2028. If Santa Monica can do it, the argument goes, why can’t Boulder?
The short answer: Santa Monica didn’t bypass FAA authority, they operated within a very narrow legal exception, built over decades of litigation, and backed by unique historical circumstances that Boulder simply doesn’t have.
Federal law gives the FAA broad authority over airspace, flight operations, pilot certification, and safety standards. But under the “airport proprietor exception,” local governments that own and operate airports are allowed to impose certain “reasonable, nonarbitrary, and nondiscriminatory” restrictions on noise and ground operations, things like curfews, preferential runway use, noise abatement procedures, and lease conditions.
This exception doesn’t let cities regulate airspace or ban aircraft outright. It lets them manage how the airport operates on the ground, within limits the FAA deems reasonable. And even then, it’s a legal minefield.
Santa Monica’s restrictions weren’t a quick policy fix, they were the result of decades of litigation and a unique legal settlement:
Pre-1990 restrictions were grandfathered. The 1990 Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA) banned most new local airport restrictions unless they went through a lengthy, expensive federal review process. Santa Monica’s curfews and operational limits were already in place before ANCA passed, so they were allowed to continue.
The 2017 Consent Decree with the FAA. After years of legal battles, Santa Monica negotiated a deal: the FAA agreed to let the city close the airport by December 31, 2028, in exchange for the city operating it in full compliance with federal grant obligations until then. This wasn’t Santa Monica “winning” against the FAA, it was a negotiated exit with a firm deadline.
No active FAA grant obligations. Santa Monica had stopped taking federal grants years earlier, giving them far more flexibility to negotiate closure terms. Boulder, by contrast, accepted a 20-year grant in May 2020, meaning we’re obligated to operate the airport through at least 2040 under federal law.
Boulder’s situation is fundamentally different:
We have active FAA grant obligations through 2040. We accepted federal money as recently as 2020. Those grants come with legally binding commitments to operate the airport and keep it open to the public.
We have no pre-ANCA restrictions to grandfather. Any new operational restrictions Boulder tries to impose would face the full weight of ANCA’s procedural requirements and likely trigger FAA enforcement or litigation.
The FAA’s position is clear: Once you accept federal grants, you’re committed to operating the airport “in perpetuity” unless the FAA approves closure. The city’s lawsuit challenging that interpretation was dismissed on procedural grounds in 2025, and we chose not to appeal.
What Boulder could realistically do: - Expand voluntary noise abatement programs - Improve pilot agreements and flight school coordination - Tighten lease standards (within limits) - Pursue a formal Part 150 noise compatibility study
What would likely trigger FAA enforcement or litigation: - Mandatory curfews - Bans on touch-and-go operations - Aircraft type restrictions - Enforceable noise caps or punitive fines tied to ordinary flight operations
A Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study is a federally-approved process under FAA regulations that allows airports to develop noise mitigation strategies in coordination with the FAA and affected communities. Here’s what it entails:
The process: 1. Conduct detailed noise studies mapping current and projected aircraft noise impacts on surrounding neighborhoods 2. Develop noise abatement measures and land use compatibility recommendations 3. Submit the study to the FAA for review and approval 4. If approved, implement measures that receive federal backing
What it could lead to: - Voluntary noise abatement procedures (preferred flight paths, quieter approach/departure routes) - Sound insulation programs for nearby homes - Land use planning guidance for noise-affected areas - In rare cases, operational restrictions like preferential runway use or voluntary curfews, but only if the FAA deems them reasonable and nondiscriminatory
The reality: A Part 150 study is expensive (often $500,000+), takes 2-3 years to complete, and offers no guarantee that the FAA will approve meaningful restrictions. Many airports pursue Part 150 studies and end up with only modest noise abatement measures, not the kind of transformative restrictions closure advocates seek. That said, it may still be worth pursuing. Even if the path is fraught and unlikely to produce dramatic results, it’s one of the few regulatory tools available to Boulder. The key is being honest about how difficult that path is and managing expectations about what it can realistically achieve.
The legal reality is that Boulder has far less room to maneuver than Santa Monica did, and even Santa Monica only achieved closure through a negotiated settlement with a firm deadline, something the FAA shows no willingness to offer Boulder.
What independent research confirms. A legal memo (not from the City of Boulder) analyzing airports that have declined or considered declining FAA grants reaches a stark conclusion: “Every airport of which we are aware that considered declining federal funding did so only as part of a long-term effort to close the airport entirely.” The authors are unaware of any airport that declined grants simply to gain more operational control, because it doesn’t work that way.
The case studies bear this out:
Reid-Hillview Airport (Santa Clara County, CA) stopped accepting grants in 2011 hoping to gain more control. They remain grant-obligated through 2031. Their relationship with the FAA is now described as “tense,” and the FAA has accused the county of inadequate maintenance. Property purchased with 1960s grants may be obligated in perpetuity, an unresolved legal question they’re still living with.
East Hampton Airport (NY) spent decades trying to exit federal obligations. After obligations finally expired in 2021, they attempted a “close-then-reopen-as-private” strategy in 2022. It was immediately challenged in court. The future remains uncertain.
St. Clair Regional Airport (MO) sought closure for over a decade. The FAA repeatedly rejected their appraisals and moved the goalposts. Their congressman described “no end in sight.” It ultimately required a standalone act of Congress in 2014 to obtain release, finalized in 2017.
And critically: a 2016 federal appeals court ruled that the Airport Noise and Capacity Act applies to all public airports, not just grant-obligated ones. Even if Boulder stopped taking federal grants tomorrow, the core federal restrictions on noise and access don’t disappear. Declining grants would cost Boulder tens of millions of dollars in local taxpayer funds while providing essentially none of the legal flexibility closure advocates are seeking. And we should buy the red herring arguments that not taking FAA grants gives us more local control. It's a ruse to simply close the airport.
The legal debate matters, but so does the financial one. At the April 23 study session, city staff presented two scenarios:
The airport operates with little to no ongoing subsidy from the city’s general fund.
Federal grants cover major maintenance costs (like the $750,000 runway sealcoating we need now).
Trade-off: We commit to operating the airport indefinitely, per the FAA’s “perpetuity” interpretation.
The city must subsidize the airport with approximately $9 million through 2040, drawn from our general fund.
Additional costs at closure: environmental remediation, decommissioning, and land repurposing.
Trade-off: We preserve the option to pursue closure after 2040, though the legal pathway remains unclear. (A note of honesty: when we say “option to close,” we should be clear-eyed about what that means. It is not a real option in any conventional sense. It means rolling the dice on a lengthy and expensive legal battle, hoping a federal judge agrees with our interpretation. That is not a plan, it is a gamble.)
This isn’t a hypothetical choice for the future, it’s an immediate decision:
The airport fund is projected to go into deficit by 2027.
Pandemic-era FAA grants are available now but will start expiring in September 2026. It’s a “use it or lose it” window.
Runway sealcoating ($750,000) is needed immediately for safety and operational standards. Without grants, that comes directly out of the general fund.
This isn’t just about future costs, we’ve already paid a price for not pursuing federal grants. According to the airport manager, Boulder has already lost nearly $830,000 in federal and state grants that expired, were reprogrammed to other projects, or missed application deadlines during the pause. Another $765,000 is still available but will expire if we don’t act soon. That’s over $1.5 million in federal funding either gone or actively at risk.
Every dollar of that is general fund money that had to support the airport, or will have to, instead of being used for core services our community depends on: public safety, road maintenance, parks, housing programs, climate initiatives.
I expressed my preference in favor of long-term airport operations because I believe it would be fiscally irresponsible to continue turning down federal funding that covers costs Boulder taxpayers would otherwise bear. We’ve already lost nearly $830,000 in federal grants while debating the airport’s future. Every additional dollar we spend subsidizing the airport through 2040 is a dollar we can’t spend on:
Affordable housing
Climate action
Infrastructure and road maintenance
Public safety
Parks and recreation
Economic development
Our city budget is already stretched thin. Core services like snow plowing, police, fire-rescue, and road repairs face funding pressure every year. We’ve already lost nearly $830,000 in federal grant money, expired, reprogrammed to other projects, or now out of reach, while Boulder debated its airport future. That includes five separate federal and state grants that either expired, were reprogrammed away from Boulder, or missed application deadlines during the pause. And the cost of delay keeps growing: another $765,000 in grants is still available but will expire if we don’t act. In total, over $1.5 million in federal funding is either gone or at risk. Diverting an additional $9 million over 14 years to subsidize an airport we’re legally required to operate anyway, when federal grants would cover those same costs, strikes me as poor stewardship of public resources.
The practical reality: We’re committed to operating this airport through at least 2040 under our existing grant obligations. The question isn’t whether to operate it, but who pays for it—federal taxpayers (via grants) or Boulder taxpayers (via general fund subsidies). We’ve already paid the price of delaying this decision. I chose the option that stops the bleeding and preserves our ability to fund the things this community desperately needs.
I understand why housing advocates see 179 acres near transit and jobs as an opportunity we can’t afford to waste. Boulder’s housing crisis is real, and I’ve spent much of my time on Council working to expand housing options and reform our land use code.
But here’s the hard truth: even if we wanted to close the airport and redevelop the land, we couldn’t do it legally until at least 2040, and even then, the FAA’s position is that we’d need their approval, which they’ve shown zero willingness to grant.
And even if we could close it in 2040, we’d face years of costly environmental remediation, decommissioning, and site preparation before any housing could be built. That raises a troubling equity question: Why would we build affordable housing on a site that requires heavy environmental cleanup? Our climate justice values tell us that low-income communities and communities of color already bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harm. Putting affordable housing on an environmentally damaged site would contradict those values entirely.
Meanwhile, compare that to the Area III Planning Reserve: 500 acres of land ready for afordable and middle-income housing development, with the potential to break ground in just a couple of years. The airport, at best, is 20+ years away and comes with a legal minefield, environmental cleanup costs, and no guarantee we’d ever get FAA approval to close it. As the old saying goes, it’s better to have one in the hand than two in the bush. As the old saying goes, it’s better to have one in the hand than two in the bush.
Meanwhile, we have tools we can use right now to address housing:
Reforming Title 9 (our outdated land use code) to allow more housing in existing neighborhoods (the subject of my previous newsletter — click here)
Reducing regulatory barriers that make housing expensive to build
Expanding middle housing
Unlocking the Area III Planning Reserve, 500 acres ready for middle-income housing, with shovels in the ground as soon as a couple years from now
The airport debate has consumed enormous political energy and public attention, energy we could be directing toward reforms that would actually produce housing in the near term. Closing the airport is not a viable housing strategy for the next 15+ years, and possibly never. Pretending otherwise just distracts us from the work we can actually do.
I don’t believe there’s a “right” answer to this debate that satisfies everyone. People who want the airport closed are motivated by legitimate concerns: housing scarcity, climate goals, noise impacts on nearby neighborhoods, and a vision for what Boulder could become. People who want the airport to remain open are motivated by equally legitimate values: preserving aviation access, supporting flight training and research, maintaining emergency services infrastructure, and protecting a piece of Boulder’s history.
My job as a councilmember isn’t to pick the “best” set of values, it’s to make decisions within the constraints we actually face. And those constraints are clear:
We’re legally bound to operate the airport through at least 2040, and likely beyond unless the FAA reverses its position.
Federal grants make the airport self-sustaining; declining them costs taxpayers $9 million we desperately need for other priorities.
No legal pathway exists for closure in the near or medium term, regardless of whether we take grants.
Given those realities, I believe the responsible choice is to commit to long-term airport operations, which allows us to pursue federal funding, operate the airport in compliance with our obligations, and focus our limited political capital on housing and land use reforms that can actually move forward.
The city attorney is currently analyzing the question of whether council has authority to set policy on grant covenant terms. A formal public hearing on the airport’s future could come as soon as two weeks from now, or it could take longer. Either way, I wanted you to hear my thinking before that conversation happens publicly, not after.
Here is where I stand: A majority of council has already expressed a clear preference on the core question. We want to operate this airport long-term, for the foreseeable future. That decision should unlock federal funding, attract private investment, and put the airport on a path to financial sustainability. The perpetuity debate, while understandable, should not stand in the way of acting on a decision we’ve already made.
I expect the debate to continue, and I welcome it. These are exactly the kinds of difficult trade-offs that define local governance, balancing competing values, weighing costs and benefits, and making choices within real legal and financial constraints.
I also hope we can redirect some of this energy toward the land use reforms that can actually produce housing now. The airport debate has consumed enormous political attention. The reforms that will actually move the needle on housing, Title 9 reform, middle-income housing, the Area III Planning Reserve deserve that same energy.
Colorado primary ballots are being mailed now. Here’s where I stand on a few key races. There are many other primaries and great representatives running unopposed, but I wanted to focus on the ones that will impact Boulder the most.
Michael Bennet has spent years in the U.S. Senate fighting for Colorado on the national stage, for our schools, our public lands, our water, and our communities. He brings a depth of policy knowledge, a collaborative governing style, and a proven ability to work across divides at a time when Colorado needs exactly that kind of leadership. I believe his extensive relationships and bipartisan trust on Capitol Hill will help inoculate our state from the harm this federal administration will seek to inflict on our state. I’m proud to endorse him.
Colorado Democrats have a genuine bounty of riches in this race. Our current Attorney General Phil Weiser is a talented, accomplished public servant who would make a fine governor, and I mean that sincerely. My support for Michael Bennet is not a statement against Phil. It’s a statement for someone I believe is uniquely prepared for this moment.
Michael Dougherty has that experience. As Boulder County’s District Attorney, he has guided our community through some of its darkest moments, the King Soopers shooting, the firebombing on Pearl Street, and countless cases that never made headlines but mattered just as much to the families involved. He is someone who will sit down with any victim, for any crime, for any reason. That says everything.
I want to thank Jena Griswold for her years of outstanding service as Colorado’s Secretary of State. She has been a fierce defender of voting rights and election integrity, and Colorado is better for her work.
But the Attorney General’s office is a different job. It is, at its core, a prosecutorial role, and I believe that role demands decades of courtroom experience, trying cases, understanding the criminal justice system from the inside, and building trust with victims across the spectrum of crime.
Michael Dougherty is by far the most qualified candidate for this office, and I am proud to endorse him.
Rachel Friend is one of the finest public servants I have had the privilege of working alongside. Her time on City Council made us all better, she is clear-eyed, mission-driven, and deeply committed to serving every corner of our community with equity and fairness.
What I admire most about Rachel is what she doesn’t do: she doesn’t play identity politics, she doesn’t get caught up in the noise, and she doesn’t grandstand. She focuses on the work. She focuses on people. And she never stops asking how we can serve our community better.
The County Treasurer’s office needs exactly that kind of steady, principled leadership. I enthusiastically endorse Rachel Friend.
The CU Board of Regents has had a difficult few years, marked by conflict, political posturing, and at times a troubling drift away from the board’s core mission: supporting the faculty, staff, and students of the University of Colorado system.
Edie Hooton is an antidote to all of that. During her time in the state legislature, she built a reputation for something increasingly rare: getting things done. She worked collaboratively with colleagues across the aisle, minimized unnecessary conflict, and stayed relentlessly focused on outcomes over politics.
The CU system needs a regent who walks in the door ready to serve, not to perform. Edie Hooton has the knowledge, the experience, and the temperament to be exactly that. I’m proud to endorse her.
For much of the past few decades, the RTD Board was a cautionary tale in poor fiscal management and broken promises. Communities across the Front Range, including Boulder, were left wondering whether the transit vision they’d voted for would ever be delivered. Only in recent years has the board begun to genuinely right the ship: governing responsibly, following through on commitments, and rebuilding the public trust it had squandered.
Jack Rosenthal represents the next chapter in that recovery, and a new generation of thinking about what public transportation can and should be. For Jack, transit isn’t just about getting from point A to point B. It’s about how we move through our communities, how we connect with each other, and how we visit neighboring cities without a car being the only viable option. He understands that investing in buses and trains isn’t a war on cars, it’s about giving people real, seamless, safe choices for how they get around the Front Range.
That’s exactly the kind of leadership RTD needs to keep moving forward. I’m proud to endorse Jack Rosenthal.
These endorsements reflect my personal views and are made in my individual capacity, not on behalf of the City of Boulder or Boulder City Council.
If you found this helpful, I'd appreciate you forwarding it to friends and neighbors. If you havnt already please feel free to sign up to my Newsletter HERE. The more people understand the full picture, the better decisions we'll all make together.
As always, thank you for being engaged, asking hard questions, and caring deeply about Boulder’s future.
Matt Benjamin
Boulder City Council
Comments